Jarod
Senior Member
- Messages
- 784
- Location
- planet earth
Yep. It's all in public domain if one takes the time to look.
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
But we sitll have to find, if so, what may be the true deeper cause tha triggers the b-Cell "over activiation": viral, random genetics, chemical or what??
doesn't mean M.E. was caused by the government in anyway,
All that the ICD is, is a means of of ensuring consistency in the classification of disease across National boundaries - it has no diagnostic power and absolutely no impact upon research selection criteria. To the extent that the UK is signed up to the ICD process, all that is required of UK Gov. is that public health statistics fit with the ICD coding. That's it. Nothing to do with health service delivery (other than recording procedures), nothing to do with clinical judgements, nothing to do with research (other than recording procedures). The ICD isn't some totem that can be used to bring everyone into line - it's just a clissification system..
The WHO ICD G93 ME classification was decided by the WHO after a number of years consideration of evidence by the WHO
Like it or not, The WHO ICD 10 is Government Policy, officially accepted by the British government and government departments (DOH, DWP), who should be insisting on its application in UK ME policy.
use the full quote, please and I should have emphasized one partExactly.
doesn't mean M.E. was caused by the government in anyway, merely that it's a genuine possibility, and more likey they just wanted it "silenced", as all they care about is the pretence of control, making sure their buddies in Big Business are happy etc.
disgusting. I thought nothing could surprise me on this topic, but I really am surprised with this. I'm sure he's in the running for Nobel Prizes in Medicine and Peace and probably will be canonized by the church. Are they handing out knighthoods like party favors now? I thought they only gave them out to the heros of the heros!?!?
GWS is a not a syndrome, just a "health effect" according to Wessley in this article. Haha, like ME is "chronic unwellness."
If someone wants to organize a protest, my offer to chip in $250 stands.
If you have ME/CFS, most of your symptoms are mental ones: that is, symptoms that relate to the functioning of your mind and brain. For example, many people with ME/CFS have significant sound sensitivity, a condition in which the brain is unable to filter out the signal from the noise. Since this symptom occurs in your brain and in your mind, it is a neurological and mental symptom.
Secondary or primary? I mean other diseases have mental symptoms too. Does that make some types of cancer mental disorders (including cancers that aren't in the brain)?
The mistake is making hypotheses in any particular direction while the underlying science has not been shown. The majority of the underlying science suggests immune dysfunction (not to be confused with autoimmunity), following infectious triggers.
Indeed some of these 'mental' aspects are as likely to be diagnosed separately - and rightly so. There is though a blurring when it comes to the way in which - the extent to which - something like e.g. depression can affect one's cognitive ability compared to or in conjunction with ME or MS.
Essentially though, in clinical practice, the treatment is the same. Largely you learn to cope - with help if you can get it or it is available - or through perseverance and acceptance.
I agree completely!
But the problem is that some researchers, certainly including Wessely and those he has worked with, will frequently diagnose depression, anxiety, somatization disorders, hysteria, and other mental health issues based solely on ME symptoms. And, conversely, may diagnose CFS based on symptoms of a mood disorder combined with a rejection of mental illness by the patient, in order to avoid confrontation regarding beliefs.
The result is a rather huge mess where a diagnosis of CFS means very different things for different patients.
Interestingly, and I know that Wessely and colleagues are often 'queried' over their use or reliance on questionnaires - Newton in the presentation had employed them to reach conclusions that showed greater autonomic dysfunction in CFS/ME than in controls, in Fatty Liver Disease and in
Primary Biliary Cirrhosis but who are defined collectively as fatigue-associated diseases.
But Val, he/they/anyone is entitled to do so. Until such time as the golden goose that is science lays it's egg and indicates a cause, or a more amenable model - the prevalent symptoms will dominate in terms of both diagnostic criteria and treatment.
As I have said before - and only use as an example as I've been reviewing Newton's recent presentation - but if you get a diagnosis of autonomic dysfunction and research leads to a treatment - according to Newton this could explain and relieve many if not most of the symptoms most reported as debilitating by those of us with ME and/or/whatever CFS as a diagnosis.
What then becomes of ME?
Interestingly, and I know that Wessely and colleagues are often 'queried' over their use or reliance on questionnaires - Newton in the presentation had employed them to reach conclusions that showed greater autonomic dysfunction in CFS/ME than in controls, in Fatty Liver Disease and in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis; but who are defined collectively as fatigue-associated diseases. Sjorgen's Syndrome was another disease mentioned on a separate reported outcomes slide.
The way things are going I do wonder at times if we won't all be diagnosed with other things and treated separately, leaving ME as being..... something less than it was thought to be? I don't know.
All that the ICD is, is a means of of ensuring consistency in the classification of disease across National boundaries - it has no diagnostic power and absolutely no impact upon research selection criteria. To the extent that the UK is signed up to the ICD process, all that is required of UK Gov. is that public health statistics fit with the ICD coding. That's it. Nothing to do with health service delivery (other than recording procedures), nothing to do with clinical judgements, nothing to do with research (other than recording procedures). The ICD isn't some totem that can be used to bring everyone into line - it's just a clissification system.
IVI
I think this is substantially correct, but it misses the political side. Its just dry accounting. ICD is used by insurance companies. That affects medical insurance, which affects medical delivery, which affects patients. This in turn affects government policy. ICD is not a scientific "truth" but it does have profound political and social implications.
I suspect this is much less of an issue in the UK than other countries as people don't tend to rely on health and unemployment insurance and products are quite limited. However with the current governments policies it might become much more of an issue.